A few weeks ago, Jesse Watters of Fox News stoked the embers of the “offensive speech” debate with largely inflammatory interviews of Princeton students on campus.
Watters asked students how they felt about certain trigger words, among them “ghetto,” “white privilege,” “black crime” and “Islamic terrorism.” The video aired on The O’Reilly Factor and was preceded by a brief description of how “sensitive” college students are to “offensive words.”
The video failed on almost all fronts. It wasn’t funny and it didn’t serve the purpose of highlighting college students’ heightened sensitivity. It was offensive, but not because of its language. It was offensive because of its intention.
The entire video was less of an interview or investigation than it was a deliberate provocation of student values. The intention of the questions was not to evoke a meaningful discussion about campus issues regarding these trigger words, but rather to elicit a specific response from the students — a response which would be immediately criticized as sensitive and overdramatic.
I think Fox News, and maybe even Jesse Watters, has a case in its accusation of college students’ sensitivity to offensive words. Why is it that we are so quick to cover our ears when someone says the word ghetto? Why do we feel threatened by the word extremist? Why do we immediately assume that the worst, most bigoted, insensitive use of the word is the only use of the word?
We underestimate (or ignore) the power of context. In the dictionary, a word is restricted to its definition, but in our practical use of words, they are more fluid than what Merriam-Webster defines them to be. Language is made beautiful by the ability of words to function differently in different settings. A word is a representation of an idea, thought or feeling, intended to be communicated to others. A word has a definition, of course, but it is incomplete without its context. It is the nature of the idea, the thought, the feeling that gives the word meaning and sometimes power.
Here is the gap in the conversation about offensive speech. Those on both sides of the argument — those like O’Reilly and Watters who accuse college students of being overly sensitive to “just words” and those who would rather see speech restricted than see groups harmed by these words — seem to ignore the role context plays. Context cannot and should not be left out of the conversation.
The sentence a word is in sheds more light on the intended use of the word than the word alone. The paragraph the sentence is in makes that light even brighter. The piece that the paragraph is in is illuminating. The more context one can evaluate, the better one can understand. Just as we harp about media sources taking quotes and clips out of context to send a specifically narrowed message, so should we feel cheated when certain words are reviled without consideration of their context — an element vital to their function.
In determining whether a word is offensive or not, I argue that we must look to its context, and look thoroughly, before we made a judgment. The problem with offensive speech is not the words being used, but the ideas, thoughts and feelings being represented by the words. We cannot change the latter by eliminating the former. The intentions of the use of words are where we should take offense, not with the words themselves.
The video was offensive. The video was offensive because its intention was to edit and manipulate clips in order to make student responses appear overly sensitive and senseless. The purpose of the video was to inflame rather than discuss issues that permeate Princeton’s campus and other campuses across the country through harassing tactics.
The video was offensive because it, too, ignored the thoughts, feelings and ideas that motivate words — ignored the possibility that these words ever could be offensive — and so minimized discourse to a labeling of all college students as “sensitive.”
Words are not inherently offensive, but often they serve an offensive purpose. We would be wise to recognize this distinction.
Jacquelyn Thorbjornson is a freshman from South Thomaston, Maine. She can be reached at jot@princeton.edu.
Read More
Princeton, why don’t you care about the working class?
Raf Basas“Princeton is an engine that currently transforms a few thousand people per year, using incredible academic, career, and financial resources, into influential decision-makers. It should turn them into compassionate and public-minded ones, too. Princeton students can and should become allies of the working class.”
“Princeton is an engine that currently transforms a few thousand people per year, using incredible academic, career, and financial resources, into influential decision-makers. It should turn them into compassionate and public-minded ones, too. Princeton students can and should become allies of the working class.”
Princeton, break up with BP
Alex Norbrook and Ryan Divan“BP cannot be considered a credible climate partner for Princeton’s research, and its relationship cannot continue.”
“BP cannot be considered a credible climate partner for Princeton’s research, and its relationship cannot continue.”
Confessions of a campus moderate
Abigail Rabieh“Obsessive interest in university life harms the learning that goes on within. When student opinions are given outsized attention, we start to believe that they have something meaningful to say and forget that they are, in fact, still very much in the process of learning how to think.”
“Obsessive interest in university life harms the learning that goes on within. When student opinions are given outsized attention, we start to believe that they have something meaningful to say and forget that they are, in fact, still very much in the process of learning how to think.”
